TheRPGSite

I was thinking about that sandbox/world in motion topic I had lately. It was about plot point campaigns and eventually moved into the sandbox or not territory. On thing that makes sanbox really good is the "world in motion". It increases immersion.

Now I am still playing the new world of darkness games and I have to admit I get more "world in motion" out of the old world of darkness, because of metaplot. Despite the metaplot probably gets lumbed into the same category as railroading. I liked the fact I knew which sects controlled which parts of the world and which clans came from which country and had their powerbase there. It felt like stuff was moving without the players being involved. The new world feels more like a city exists in a vacuum.

Anyone has any ideas about this?

That's how I prefer to do long sandboxes - a general plot with several arcs that the PCs can interact with or ignore, as they wish.

Short sandboxes can be of the "I want to go there and see what is there" variety, for me, but eventually I want something more from the game.

Metaplot = (world in motion) - (player agency)

Quote from: soltakss;743820That's how I prefer to do long sandboxes - a general plot with several arcs that the PCs can interact with or ignore, as they wish.

But not really change to any significant degree? That's what I think of when I read 'metaplot'... a built in ending that can't really be altered... because it's a 'plot'... not a 'situation'.

Quote from: The Butcher;743823Metaplot = (world in motion) - (player agency)

Yes, that's what it ought to mean to one's own campaign. The words on the page are just that: words on a page.

Quote from: The Butcher;743823Metaplot = (world in motion) - (player agency)

God, this is concise. I like it.

How do you do the "world"? Do you just stick to a city?

I have to admit that the city books (both old and new) create a (political) city in motion. But in the old games it was embedded into a world in which also shit happened.

I prefer NWoD because things change via player actions and the composition of the world is up to me. For example I could excise vampires entirely and it wouldn't wreck the game if I wanted.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;743829God, this is concise. I like it.

How do you do the "world"? Do you just stick to a city?

I have to admit that the city books (both old and new) create a (political) city in motion. But in the old games it was embedded into a world in which also shit happened.

"Metaplot" to me means "Luke Skywalker will fight Darth Vader, who will then kill the Emperor.  NOTHING the players do will, or can, alter that."

Of course, it's a big galaxy, and in the Tapani Sector, Dahail Sunfire, first of the New Republic Jedi, was much more famous than that Skywalker kid.

Quote from: Old Geezer;743840"Metaplot" to me means "Luke Skywalker will fight Darth Vader, who will then kill the Emperor.  NOTHING the players do will, or can, alter that."

Of course, it's a big galaxy, and in the Tapani Sector, Dahail Sunfire, first of the New Republic Jedi, was much more famous than that Skywalker kid.

Yeah, I think you are right. If that is what metaplot is, than I think I don't miss metaplot. I miss some worldbuilding.

I like kitchen sink stuff. Big settings, lot's of regions/area's/planets to explore, lot's of different organisations doing their own thing, that kind of stuff. Basicly like your run of the mill kitchen sink fantasy setting.

I find it easy to imagine what different splats are doing in SW Hellfrost for example, while my players are doing something else. If my players are looting some dungeon in the forest region of the world, some knights might be fighting frost giants in the mountain area. The other way around if my players are fighting the frost giants, then some other relic hunters might be looting that dungeon at the same time.

I don't get that from the new wod. I seems to me nothing would happen at all in that world if my players aren't doing something. Which is a problem, because of a lack of immersion.

Metaplot be damned or maybe not?

Yes, this exactly, so that the players could follow that, or just strike out on their own tangent if that makes them happy; then the metaplot is just a thing that happened.

Quote from: dragoner;743848Metaplot be damned or maybe not?

Yes, this exactly, so that the players could follow that, or just strike out on their own tangent if that makes them happy; then the metaplot is just a thing that happened.

Right.  I don't think metaplot is necessarily bad, as long as there's plenty of room for the players to be cool.  I mean, you could play an entire "smugglers' war" version of Star Wars where the entire Rebellion/Empire conflict is merely the background, and you don't give a shit except to make sure whoever you're running guns to pays in full on time, and that you get there before Bakka's Gang.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;743847Yeah, I think you are right. If that is what metaplot is, than I think I don't miss metaplot. I miss some worldbuilding.

I like kitchen sink stuff. Big settings, lot's of regions/area's/planets to explore, lot's of different organisations doing their own thing, that kind of stuff. Basicly like your run of the mill kitchen sink fantasy setting.

I find it easy to imagine what different splats are doing in SW Hellfrost for example, while my players are doing something else. If my players are looting some dungeon in the forest region of the world, some knights might be fighting frost giants in the mountain area. The other way around if my players are fighting the frost giants, then some other relic hunters might be looting that dungeon at the same time.

I don't get that from the new wod. I seems to me nothing would happen at all in that world if my players aren't doing something. Which is a problem, because of a lack of immersion.

I don't agree it's quite simple vampires are where the people are as are Uratha to a lesser degree while Mages and to a lesser degree Hunters are where the supernatural and weirdness are. Then you populate with the appropriate orders, clans, tribes etc. leaving some out if appropriate and so on.

Well metaplot as as the stuff going on in the background is fairly common in campaigns I have seen or DMed. Usually its just news of so-n-so doing this-n-that to these-n-those.

Sometimes its stuff the players didnt act on doing what it will since no one has oppose them.

This can be usefull for later as say the necromancer the players couldnt be bothered to dither with way back at the start now has a large army of skeletons and is expanding his domain.

Or the beggar the players helped later shows up with a useful bit of info he overheard in the city to repay the kindness.

As opposed to the PCs existing in a near vacuum if quest-kill-loot-quest.

Quote from: Omega;743855Well metaplot as as the stuff going on in the background is fairly common in campaigns I have seen or DMed. Usually its just news of so-n-so doing this-n-that to these-n-those.

Sometimes its stuff the players didnt act on doing what it will since no one has oppose them.

This can be usefull for later as say the necromancer the players couldnt be bothered to dither with way back at the start now has a large army of skeletons and is expanding his domain.

Or the beggar the players helped later shows up with a useful bit of info he overheard in the city to repay the kindness.

As opposed to the PCs existing in a near vacuum if quest-kill-loot-quest.

That isn't metaplot that's just world in motion. NWoD is specifically built for this playstyle.

Quote from: Marleycat;743852I don't agree it's quite simple vampires are where the people are as are Uratha to a lesser degree while Mages and to a lesser degree Hunters are where the supernatural and weirdness are. Then you populate with the appropriate orders, clans, tribes etc. leaving some out if appropriate and so on.

I think I meant canon. I like some canon. In the old games you knew the Assamites were big in the Middle-East so a regime there would be different from your default European or North-American Camarilla city. You knew the Lasombra have a bigger presence in Spain than in Hong Kong. Just like you have fantasy setting with area's you know there is an undead lord in charge for more than a century now. I like that.

Quote from: Marleycat;743857That isn't metaplot that's just world in motion. NWoD is specifically built for this playstyle.

Metaplot can be world in motion. World in motion doesn't have to be metaplot, it can be made up by the GM.

I think I'm with Marleycat... 'metaplot' is a bit more than just 'world in motion'... it's world in motion on a pre-determined path that cannot be altered. Though, like some have pointed out... the PCs might just as soon ignore it and go on with other business.
If the GM won't allow for their ignoring it that's when it becomes a railroad... though sometimes it's the players thinking that if the 'story' is there it means the GM wants them to go play in it, which isn't always the case.
How hard was it to just ignore the metaplot in OWOD?
What about in the first edition of Tribe 8?
I mean besides just not buying the splatbooks... was there much on offer that didn't key into the metaplot?

Quote from: jan paparazzi;743863I think I meant canon. I like some canon. In the old games you knew the Assamites were big in the Middle-East so a regime there would be different from your default European or North-American Camarilla city. You knew the Lasombra have a bigger presence in Spain than in Hong Kong. Just like you have fantasy setting with area's you know there is an undead lord in charge for more than a century now. I like that.

I see, but nothing is stopping you setting up that very same distribution in the NWoD you just have far more flexibility to go other directions with no player push back by canon junkies. For example your NWoD setting could have 10 Paths/7 Orders for mages and so on.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;743864Metaplot can be world in motion. World in motion doesn't have to be metaplot, it can be made up by the GM.

No, metaplot is made by the writers while it's the GM that sets the world in motion respective and irrespective of player actions and agency.

Metaplot is "The Gangrel are no longer Camarilla because of poorly written Clan Novel. So don't bother to aspire being Gangrel primogen. We just have to deal with it now."

It's something that really only matters in Organized Play. Personal tables can toss that nonsense away easily. Once you fully relinquish your own power over your own campaign's time/space/actors to design-by-committee published canon, you deserve all the heartache you give yourself.

Ask yourself a simple question: who's the GM? If you find yourself whining that you are no longer in control, kick yourself in the ass and wake up. RPGs are products that serve you, not the other way around.

Quote from: Opaopajr;743876Ask yourself a simple question: who's the GM? If you find yourself whining that you are no longer in control, kick yourself in the ass and wake up. RPGs are products that serve you, not the other way around.

Bazinga!

I have never worried about metaplot material for a game world. I'm quite certain that my GMing life has been happier for it.

Meh. I've used metaplot as world-in-motion in a few games. Never really saw the problem. I think the reason for that is that when I did use it the situations involved were never something that was feasibly possible for the PCs to alter; it was truly background material. That's not to say that I wouldn't have let them change the metaplot, just that it was never likely to happen. And, it didn't.

It might be worth noting that the RPGs where I've used this were all hard-ish sci-fi. I can imagine the same kind of thing having much more trouble surviving contact with the PCs in a game like D&D, and hence, I've never really used it there.

The real problem IMO comes from "timeline", evolving metaplot over a variety of supplements. The GM then has to decide what's true, what isn't, whether to keep up with the game line or not, with the consequence in practice that the general audience of the game will become pixelated between those who consider this or that setting event to be true or not, in effect having different slight variations of the setting with each book, and issues cropping up in those long-running campaigns this style of setting development is supposed to catter to in the first place (howcome the Assamites are still under the Tremere curse in your game? It sucks! It's not the 'real World of Darkness!).

All this sort of game design accomplishes on the long term is the destruction of the shared experience it seeks to establish in the first place. There are better ways to accomplish the same sense of depth in the setting without conflicting with the referee's authority over his own personal setting in motion.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;743920Bazinga!

I have never worried about metaplot material for a game world. I'm quite certain that my GMing life has been happier for it.

I've only used metaplot when it has suited me. I don't understand why this attitude isn't universal.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;743829God, this is concise. I like it.

How do you do the "world"? Do you just stick to a city?

I have to admit that the city books (both old and new) create a (political) city in motion. But in the old games it was embedded into a world in which also shit happened.

I've been running the same campaign and setting since 83.  There are many such plot arcs (it is a "divest" setting, not a "conset"--diverse plotline setting as opposed to a single, consistent over arching plotline).

Larger arcs are broken down into smaller ones.

and to be WIM, they are happening with or without the PCs.  The PCs can affect them (we can hope to god they get a clue), but their Velocity needs to be felt and decided.  Some of my larger plots affect, to some degree, all three of my groups in completely different areas.  The Dreadwing (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14955507/Dreadwing) plotline has been around since almost the beginning.  But the local arcs are very different...but if the players stick with them, they will move up the ladder and could actually intersect.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;743829God, this is concise. I like it.

How do you do the "world"? Do you just stick to a city?

I have to admit that the city books (both old and new) create a (political) city in motion. But in the old games it was embedded into a world in which also shit happened.

Depends on the game, of course; for Traveller the standard size is a whole damn stellar sector, but since star systems usually take very little statting up, they may be just as easy or easier to run than a WoD city.

For the WoD, old or new, I have it down to a friggin' science.

The Butcher's WoD Urban Sandbox Set-up Algorithm

1. Take a city. It can be wholly made-up, or a real city, or anything in between. Make good note of the real-world layout and especially of the population, culture, and current problems, as they're all crucial fuel for future adventures.

2. Optional: tag a "theme" and a "mood" on the city. Theme can be as highbrow as "the powerlessness of Man before the all-devouring Time" shit, or as straight as "vampires are vicious bastards who turn everything they touch to shit" or "werewolves are the only line of defense from fucked-up soul-eating spirits, but they can be real dicks about it". Mood is simpler: "trenchcoats-and-katanas action fueled by centuries-old slights" or "spy intrigue plus weird supernatural shit" or "the video for Prodigy's Smack My Bitch Up". You don't have to do this but it does help make things simpler; I suspect we usually end up doing this whether we realize or not.

3. With theme and mood in mind, decide on the city's supernatural community. 90% to 99% of the attention is to be lavished on the character's fatsplat (ie. vampires for a Vampire game); unless it's a Hunter game, to which I suggest 50%-75% monsters, and 25%-50% hunters. Werewolf and some Mage games also require a good deal of attention towards the local spirit ecology.
3a. Decide who the factions are.
3b. Stat up key NPCs.
3c. Decide how they fit together with each other (relationship maps optional) and with the city around them.
3d. Bury secrets around for PCs to find out about.

4. Have everyone generate PCs.
4a. Clue them in on what's good for your game and what's not, not only mechanically but fluff-wise, for whatever reasons. I'm usually laissez-faire with character generation, but I understand if you want your city not to have (e.g.) any Daeva Acolytes since Hedwiga the Cunning and her brood were purged in the Blood Hunt of 1889 (i.e. let them know that there's a reason, within the game world, that might serve as a future adventure hook). Also give them an inkling about the power structure, e.g. "sure, you can play a Sanctified, but the Acolyte Prince hates and persecutes them."
4b. If they have sires, mentors, etc. stat them up and fit them within the city hierarchy, or assign an appropriate NPC you've already created. Discuss this with the PC. In my game table, unless they take the Mentor Merit or somesuch, I feel fairly free to assign whatever sire I deem fit.
4c. Make sure everyone has a goal. It can be as simple as "to impress the elders" or "to get back at my sire for Embracing me". You can make it work for the aimless types because of the way the games are set (vampires have to hunt, werewolves get hounded by spirits, etc.).

5. Get the show on the road!

Hope that helps.

Quote from: Simlasa;743824But not really change to any significant degree? That's what I think of when I read 'metaplot'... a built in ending that can't really be altered... because it's a 'plot'... not a 'situation'.

Hell no. My players can change, or affect, any metaplot. If it exists they can change it.

How do they change it?
Killing certain NPCs.
Taking actions that mean the metaplot makes no sense.
Taking control of certain areas of the game, in effect become the agents of change.

Quote from: Old Geezer;743840"Metaplot" to me means "Luke Skywalker will fight Darth Vader, who will then kill the Emperor.  NOTHING the players do will, or can, alter that.".

Unless they turn Luke to the Dark Side, or kill him, or stop him from joining the rebellion.

The way I see it, the GM can say "Here is the metaplot, this is what is going to happen no matter what" and the steamroller happily flattens anything in its path. Or, the GM can say "Here is the metaplot, it is flexible and can be altered by player activity" and it becomes one of the many strands in the game.

I prefer the second approach.

Quote from: soltakss;743971Unless they turn Luke to the Dark Side, or kill him, or stop him from joining the rebellion.

The way I see it, the GM can say "Here is the metaplot, this is what is going to happen no matter what" and the steamroller happily flattens anything in its path. Or, the GM can say "Here is the metaplot, it is flexible and can be altered by player activity" and it becomes one of the many strands in the game.

I prefer the second approach.

Metaplot is not just flexible and permeable to the actions of the PCs, in many, many games, that is the hoped-for outcome. PCs are always supposed to be the agents of change and the difference makers, though the GM must be careful to give the opposite impression most of the time.  Because the PCs are the protagonists of the game.

In the 'Star Wars' example, Luke, Leia, Han, and theirs are all the PCs...the protagonists.  Harry Potter, Ron, Hermione are the same...etc.

Obviously.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;743829God, this is concise. I like it.

How do you do the "world"? Do you just stick to a city?

I have to admit that the city books (both old and new) create a (political) city in motion. But in the old games it was embedded into a world in which also shit happened.

Pretend you are there, listening to gossip, picking a newletter, etc. What do you see, what do hear? What will happen if you do nothing, what will happen if you did X, Y, or Z?

To me that is the essence of implementing a world in motion for a given setting. Standing at the viewpoint of the character and imagining what they would be seeing.

Quote from: Old Geezer;743840"Metaplot" to me means "Luke Skywalker will fight Darth Vader, who will then kill the Emperor.  NOTHING the players do will, or can, alter that."

That bad metaplot and defeats the purpose of why anybody would play a tabletop RPG. Goto the movie for that stuff.

what people are calling meta plot in this thread is not a "bad thing" in my book. As long you treat as a plan of battle.

Why a plan of batte? Well, as Old Geezer would known, general who slavishly followed the original battle plan often wound up losing. Why they keep making battle plans if following them just causes your forces to lose?

Because a good plan provides a structure and a focus to what the general wants to accomplish. And a good general will be willing to alter it in the face of changing circumstances and even throw it way if called for.

But without it the army would be a disorganized rabble not knowing where to go or where anything is.

So it is a balance. On one hand slavishly following it will cause you to lose, but on the other with out you won't be able to get anything done.

The same with tabletop roleplaying. There is nothing wrong in having a metaplot or a timeline as long as you willing to alter it, FAIRLY, in light of the players actions as their characters.

PCs could fight Darth Vader and kill him before Luke does anything to him in my SW campaign.

As estar just pointed out, anything that's posited for the future is an hypothetical in a role playing game, IF the PCs don't mess with the events leading to it in any way, shape or form.

So, as written, was the OWOD metaplot something that could be significantly altered by PCs?
Whattabout Tribe 8?

What other RPGs had big metaplots going on over various books?

I wonder if the old ones in CoC count... because it's kind of assumed that someday the stars WILL be right and they WILL return... and that's a bad thing and there's not much that can be done about it.

A little bit of metaplot is fun.  The problem is that, down the line, the metaplot diverges from your campaign, invalidating some part of future published material.  Sure, you can ignore the Star Wars trilogy as laid out in metaplot in the Star Wars sourcebooks, but don't look for an Alderaan sourcebook in the future ;)

Quote from: jan paparazzi;743818I was thinking about that sandbox/world in motion topic I had lately. It was about plot point campaigns and eventually moved into the sandbox or not territory. On thing that makes sanbox really good is the "world in motion". It increases immersion.

Now I am still playing the new world of darkness games and I have to admit I get more "world in motion" out of the old world of darkness, because of metaplot. Despite the metaplot probably gets lumbed into the same category as railroading. I liked the fact I knew which sects controlled which parts of the world and which clans came from which country and had their powerbase there. It felt like stuff was moving without the players being involved. The new world feels more like a city exists in a vacuum.

Anyone has any ideas about this?

People online tend toward extremes.  This includes the pro-sandbox/anti-metaplotty railroad faction.  Some metaplot and railroading is fine with the overwhelming majority of gamers.  Most people are pretty flexible.

I think that, as a general rule, having the world have shit going on in it outside of what the players can do is pretty cool.

That said, the game is about the fucking PCs, whether that's four of them in a permanent party, or fifty of them in an open table game.  If the shit going on outside of the PCs' influence is more important (read: has more impact at the table) than the shit the PCs do, something is wrong.

Things that the PCs can only indirectly influence at best should have only indirect impact on the PCs.  (Generalization, there are clearly exceptions).  If you're playing Star Wars, and the movie events are going on, then the game shouldn't be about taking down the Imperials because the players can't do that.  A smuggling game set in some backwater where the rebellion is causing additional issues and opportunities for smugglers?  Awesome!

Quote from: soltakss;743971Unless they turn Luke to the Dark Side, or kill him, or stop him from joining the rebellion.

The way I see it, the GM can say "Here is the metaplot, this is what is going to happen no matter what" and the steamroller happily flattens anything in its path. Or, the GM can say "Here is the metaplot, it is flexible and can be altered by player activity" and it becomes one of the many strands in the game.

I prefer the second approach.

That is the thing though.

For some metaplot is the stuff the PCs arent interacting with and might never interact with.

For others the metaplot is something that the PCs can potentially interact with and even de-rail totally.

Astrodomini Cluster is a good example of that. There are quite a few metaplots all running in tandem that the PCs might never even know of. Or if they knew of. They might not care to intervene.

Quote from: Omega;744040For others the metaplot is something that the PCs can potentially interact with and even de-rail totally.

Astrodomini Cluster is a good example of that. There are quite a few metaplots all running in tandem that the PCs might never even know of. Or if they knew of. They might not care to intervene.

In my view setting detail, metalplot, etc boil down to two broad areas that impact a campaign. The first is defines locales. For example a metaplot where the evil overlord is planning to invade the kingdom in a surprise attack from the wilderness could mean there is a fort that was built to stage the attack from.

However the most important effect that is the ultimate reason why the various NPCs act the way they do. I define religions, cultures, and detail histories not because my players will "discover" them but because they allow me to get a grip on roleplaying the cast of thousands that the players interact with.

While people have free will, the stage on which their choices are exercised is defined by the various cultures that make up civilization. And why the various cultures came about is because of their past, the combined weight of the choices of all those who preceded the present.

Since we are talking about a leisure activity we don't have to be academically rigorous. Thus free to apply stereotypes and tropes. But history and other setting detail help step the campaign up to the level for those who enjoy a richer palette when interacting with NPCs.

I've run a few games where background actions in the setting set the tone and influence the options available to the players. A few of my Conan games were set up around these kinds of concepts: in one, the players were fleeing from a plague epidemic (which gave them both a goal and a reason to not stick around too long anywhere) and in another one, they started off fleeing from a lost battle.

In my Star Wars game, the players were the leaders of a separatist faction of the Empire, who played second fiddle to the Rebellion in many ways and wouldn't affect the outcome of the war significantly but played an important role in many of the events that we saw in the movies, since they were tenuously allied with the Rebels. So they fought post-Hoth to help the Rebels escape and brought a fleet of their own to help out at Endor.

From the player POV in these campaigns, the important part isn't what's going on in the big picture, but how they affect what's going on in their game. The Endor thing, for instance led into the Imperial fleet's picket line surrendering to the players instead of the Rebels, which soured relations between the players' faction and the Rebellion, so the game takes a new course from then onwards.

Quote from: estar;743987Because a good plan provides a structure and a focus to what the general wants to accomplish. And a good general will be willing to alter it in the face of changing circumstances and even throw it way if called for.

But without it the army would be a disorganized rabble not knowing where to go or where anything is.

So it is a balance. On one hand slavishly following it will cause you to lose, but on the other with out you won't be able to get anything done.

The same with tabletop roleplaying. There is nothing wrong in having a metaplot or a timeline as long as you willing to alter it, FAIRLY, in light of the players actions as their characters.

I am tagging onto this one.  We  both play giant, old sandboxes, so it is not surprising we have the same ideas and the same bemused, "Why is this even a question?" attitude.

There are a lot of skills you can break down into building a good GM. Really, lots. from memory to improvisational acting to descriptive vocabulary to social leadership skills...I can go on...really.

but many of these skills add onto each other for creating some small amount of verisimilitude, some level of being able to see and feel your character in that setting.  And a lot of this comes from having that World in Motion idea...
which depends on having this mutable, consistent timeline of DYNAMIC events that create and build a chain of later events, that happen around the PCs.

We often talk about the ability to breath life into an NPC or an interaction, but the Metaplots and smaller dynamic events that trickle down from them are, together with the notes and facts and personalities, create the personality of the setting.  And at the end of the day, the PCs play the protagonists, we play the way the rest of the world reacts to the actions of the protagonists.  And a good GM uses Dynamic Metaplot to give the setting a life and a feel all its own, unique and different from a generic 'orcs and evil wizards' game.

It seems like people are using different definitions of "metaplot".  Having a game where the world is full of NPCs that have motivations, history, and goals is not metaplot.  That is "situation" or maybe "plot".  Metaplot is when the world changes over the course of supplements.  The supplements tell a story, and as such, future supplements may have a significantly different take on places, NPCs, and objects.  High King Pantysniffer may be described in several supplements, and then a book comes out that reveals him as being a zombie and thereafter all supplements consider him a zombie.  This is annoying because if you were waiting for the Realm Book that was about his realm, well now it is different than it was when the game launched.

I hate metaplot.

metaplot = story told through game supplements.

Quote from: Obeeron;744093It seems like people are using different definitions of "metaplot".  Having a game where the world is full of NPCs that have motivations, history, and goals is not metaplot.  That is "situation" or maybe "plot".  Metaplot is when the world changes over the course of supplements.  The supplements tell a story, and as such, future supplements may have a significantly different take on places, NPCs, and objects.  High King Pantysniffer may be described in several supplements, and then a book comes out that reveals him as being a zombie and thereafter all supplements consider him a zombie.  This is annoying because if you were waiting for the Realm Book that was about his realm, well now it is different than it was when the game launched.

I hate metaplot.

metaplot = story told through game supplements.

I think of metaplot as setting development through supplements as well. While I dont mind the idea of a suggested future historical timeline, where it should be obvious actions taken by the PCs can alter its course, i find metaplot too heavy handed and overkill. All you really need is a small timeline int he back of the setting book, possibly with some explanatory text, saying what future events are likely to occur. But frankly, this is stuff the GM himself can usualy handle bettern on his own anyways. I do like the idea that the campaign keeps develing and for those developments to have some thought put into them. I have never really encountered metaplot that achieves that very well though. A lot of times, developers just use metaplot to "fix" the setting or tell a story.

Quote from: Obeeron;744093It seems like people are using different definitions of "metaplot".  Having a game where the world is full of NPCs that have motivations, history, and goals is not metaplot.

I disagree for the simple fact that people (and characters) don't act the way they do without context. People have a free will, but it exercised within the context of their circumstances.

Even if you studiously avoid writing a story as your metaplot and focus on just the NPCs there will be a metaplot none the less. At the very least it will arise out of how the NPCs react to the PCs actions

A perfectly good campaigns can be managed like this. However since we are talking about a game with human referee it is easy to get muddled when trying to manage the interaction of dozen or so distinct character. A plan or metaplot that is a high level view of what going on will mitigate this problem.

It similar to how historians sift through dozens of personal accounts, letters,  and reports to develop an overview that people recognize as a history. People don't deliberately try to create history. Instead history arise from the actions of many individuals with varying levels of impact.

The metaplot is a possible future history that acts a guide for a human referee in deciding how his NPCs will act. Moreso it reduces work because it provides the referee with guidance on how to handle unexpected interactions created by the PCs.

Quote from: Obeeron;744093Metaplot is when the world changes over the course of supplements.  The supplements tell a story, and as such, future supplements may have a significantly different take on places, NPCs, and objects.

The problem with many publishers handling of metaplot and supplements is that it either too much or too little. If you imagine a setting as a real place, time will progress. If a publisher wants to incorporate that in his product line then he has to decide how to present it.

Having each products incrementally build up the timeline is the wrong way to go about this in my opinion. The alternative, if you want to introduce the progression of time, is to support discrete eras. Once you decide to focus on an era freeze the timeline at the beginning of the era and base all your products around that. Then for the next year (or cycle) jump ahead (or back) and repeat.

For example release Greyhawk for CY 576. Publish a few things. Then jump ahead two decades to the Greyhawk Wars (I think CY 591) Release all your product set in CY 591. Then jump ahead to the post war CY 610 or jump back to CY0. Or whatever.

I attempted a little of this with my first Points of Light where each setting was set in a different time period of the setting. A combination of being jammed for space and a desire for a better presentation of a setting lead me to setup it this way. Rather than writing a history and expecting people to read it. I SHOWED the history by the setting each land in a different time period.

Quote from: Marleycat;743871No, metaplot is made by the writers while it's the GM that sets the world in motion respective and irrespective of player actions and agency.

Yes, but you could use the metaplot running in the background as a world in motion.

Quote from: Marleycat;743870I see, but nothing is stopping you setting up that very same distribution in the NWoD you just have far more flexibility to go other directions with no player push back by canon junkies. For example your NWoD setting could have 10 Paths/7 Orders for mages and so on.

Yeah, I know. I like canon, because it gets my creative juices flowing. I am not a canon lawyer. I just like a starting point.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;744209Yes, but you could use the metaplot running in the background as a world in motion.


Yeah, I know. I like canon, because it gets my creative juices flowing. I am not a canon lawyer. I just like a starting point.

1. I suppose it's possible but for me it's too restrictive.
2. What you should do is get the translation guides that would guide you on how to put as much or little OWoD into the NWoD as you prefer especially if you have OWoD books you could just port it (metaplot) over wholesale after you have the technical things done.

Quote from: Benoist;743936All this sort of game design accomplishes on the long term is the destruction of the shared experience it seeks to establish in the first place. There are better ways to accomplish the same sense of depth in the setting without conflicting with the referee's authority over his own personal setting in motion.

In other words the metaplot is way too detailed. If it's a small plot of two pages you won't have that problem. Which other ways are you referring to btw?

Quote from: The Butcher;743969Depends on the game, of course; for Traveller the standard size is a whole damn stellar sector, but since star systems usually take very little statting up, they may be just as easy or easier to run than a WoD city.

For the WoD, old or new, I have it down to a friggin' science.

The Butcher's WoD Urban Sandbox Set-up Algorithm

Hope that helps.

I was already familiar with this. This is the default WoD type setup with a city, NPC's etc. Good to see this anyway. Thing I didn't use before was player goals. Do you also give your NPC's goals? I like that too, it gives them more direction then just their relationship.

Quote from: estar;743986Pretend you are there, listening to gossip, picking a newletter, etc. What do you see, what do hear? What will happen if you do nothing, what will happen if you did X, Y, or Z?

To me that is the essence of implementing a world in motion for a given setting. Standing at the viewpoint of the character and imagining what they would be seeing.

This is really good. It's a different approach then the Butcher's approach, but it is really vivid. This is the way it worked in the Bloodlines video game. Gossip, newspapers, tv news etc.

Quote from: Obeeron;744093It seems like people are using different definitions of "metaplot".  Having a game where the world is full of NPCs that have motivations, history, and goals is not metaplot.  That is "situation" or maybe "plot".  Metaplot is when the world changes over the course of supplements.  The supplements tell a story, and as such, future supplements may have a significantly different take on places, NPCs, and objects.  High King Pantysniffer may be described in several supplements, and then a book comes out that reveals him as being a zombie and thereafter all supplements consider him a zombie.  This is annoying because if you were waiting for the Realm Book that was about his realm, well now it is different than it was when the game launched.

I hate metaplot.

metaplot = story told through game supplements.

For the record I never said metaplot is the same as world in motion. World in motion can be what happens in the background wether the players do something about it or not. Technically you "could" use a metaplot event as something that happens in the background. But it isn't the same.

I have never had a problem with metaplot. I take what I like, ignore what I don't and shunt into the background parts that don't interest my players.

But that said, I am not a big fan of splat books. My preferred method of RPGing is Core Book + My Brain and run from there. The only TSR era settings that I really invested in were Planescape, Ravenloft and Dark Sun and I certainly modified the hell out of whatever materials didn't fit into my vision. My WoD days were spent in Werewolf and Trinity and those metaplots worked for me more often than not. My main Vampire experience is in the LARP world at cons and that's very one shot outside out the official organized play groups.

I am a living god and also a GM. Thus the books must do my bidding.

Quote from: Spinachcat;744244I have never had a problem with metaplot. I take what I like, ignore what I don't and shunt into the background parts that don't interest my players.

But that said, I am not a big fan of splat books. My preferred method of RPGing is Core Book + My Brain and run from there. The only TSR era settings that I really invested in were Planescape, Ravenloft and Dark Sun and I certainly modified the hell out of whatever materials didn't fit into my vision. My WoD days were spent in Werewolf and Trinity and those metaplots worked for me more often than not. My main Vampire experience is in the LARP world at cons and that's very one shot outside out the official organized play groups.

I am a living god and also a GM. Thus the books must do my bidding.

For the record the metaplot is gone in the new world of darkness.

The world in motion consists mostly of city books.
City books have:
1. A city with it's theme's and moods
2. A lay of the land which consists of different districts and neighbourhoods
3. A supernatural court or the current regime
4. A cast of NPC's

It still is very much the same thing as the old WoD city books. The biggest difference is the politics isn't part of your sub-race (clan in vampire), but is part of an opt-in faction (covenant in vampire).

In vampire there are five clans which are only your race and give you specific powers (disciplines). It doesn't mean much else. Your covenant is your alliance to a certain philosophy or religion. In vampire there are five covenants. The Invictus is a feudal organisation much like the Camarilla or the old Ventrue clan. The Carthians are the rebels against the system, they want something modern usually a bit leftist. The Lancea Sanctum is the vampire church with a philosophy like the old Path of Night. The Circle of the Crone are the pagans (with bloody sacrifices on an altar) and the Ordo Dracul want to becomes daywalkers and experiment a lot.

Two or three of those five factions make up the default regime and the others are opposition without being at war with each other. Most vampire NPC's are a member of those splats. Some are unaligned.

That is pretty much a run of the mill vampire city. Usually is the Invictus plus Lancea Sanctum the status quo. Stuff like random encounters or rumours you might come across in a pub are things you won't find in a WoD book. They just set up the powers that be and their relations towards each other. And then the political dance of striving for power begins.

I am rambling a bit, but I thought I just clear things up to show how different it is from a fantasy kitchen sink setting.

You did forget all of the baseline you described can be altered with no bad effect. For example you can set it up that the Circle of the Crone and Ordo Dracul are the inside alliance with the Invictus having no presence and the LS and Carthians in a loose alliance as your French Resistance. No fuss no muss.

Quote from: Marleycat;744295You did forget all of the baseline you described can be altered with no bad effect. For example you can set it up that the Circle of the Crone and Ordo Dracul are the inside alliance with the Invictus having no presence and the LS and Carthians in a loose alliance as your French Resistance. No fuss no muss.

True. I don't see it that often though.

I think this is the biggest draw people have towards these games. I actually couldn't care less, because I don't find it that exciting who is in control and who is in alliance with who. It's all potayto potahto to me. I always want to ignore all that stuff and try to find out why all those people are getting killed and why they all come from the same orphanage.

Edit: Actually these are the relationships. This brings me back to an earlier post about sandboxes. Splats should have goals instead of relationships.

I found an interesting WoD site with some stuff about the spirit world that could be sandboxed. Link. (http://thereachmux.org/wiki/The_Shadow)

There's two kinds of metaplot out there: there's the stuff driven from the published material itself, where you're told something HAS to happen or something CAN'T happen because of something to do with the setting material, or novel or tv-show or comic tie-ins, or because of the Author's "Vision" of how it ought to be, or because of future products, or whatever bullshit.

The second is where the GM himself has a grand 'authorial' scheme as a frustrated would-be novelist of how he would like things to go and therefore railroads his way into insisting it turn out how he likes.

Both suck ass.

Quote from: RPGPundit;745154There's two kinds of metaplot out there: there's the stuff driven from the published material itself, where you're told something HAS to happen or something CAN'T happen because of something to do with the setting material, or novel or tv-show or comic tie-ins, or because of the Author's "Vision" of how it ought to be, or because of future products, or whatever bullshit.

The second is where the GM himself has a grand 'authorial' scheme as a frustrated would-be novelist of how he would like things to go and therefore railroads his way into insisting it turn out how he likes.

Both suck ass.

No.
Or, at least, if you'd read any of the posts previous, you'd se many who consider Metaplot to be the large-scale stuff the GM sets into motion (often at different levels) to enhance the World in Motion ideal, for the PCs to interact or not interact with at different levels.

Quote from: LordVreeg;745173No.
Or, at least, if you'd read any of the posts previous, you'd se many who consider Metaplot to be the large-scale stuff the GM sets into motion (often at different levels) to enhance the World in Motion ideal, for the PCs to interact or not interact with at different levels.

If you use the world in motion you could get something of a metaplot. If factions or NPC's would do stuff in a setting without the players being involved you could consider that World in Motion. For example you might be in Skyrim venturing into dungeon and suddenly you find out the Stormcloaks have won against the Imperials without you getting involved (this is very fictional). This would be world in motion, but other people might call it a metaplot event.

I started this topic to find out what would make a world in motion in the new wod. I now know what is missing. It's not the metaplot. It's goals and motivations. The old wod had clear goals. The Technocracy wants to wipe out magic for example. The Traditions don't want that. You could see what will be going on even without players getting involved. New wod doesn't have that. You gotta make it up yourself. An NPC goal could be becoming a Primogen for example. A covenant goal could be getting control of the Harbour district, which is now Invictus territory.

This never came up with me, because the books don't set that example. They only give relationships. What NPC's think of each other, what covenants think of other covenants, what clans think of other clans etc. This could be useful, but it doesn't create a dynamic environment. I think this is because the WW writers don't get the principles behind a sandbox game. They think making a relationship web or political web is enough for a sandbox game. I think they are wrong.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;745191If you use the world in motion you could get something of a metaplot. If factions or NPC's would do stuff in a setting without the players being involved you could consider that World in Motion. For example you might be in Skyrim venturing into dungeon and suddenly you find out the Stormcloaks have won against the Imperials without you getting involved (this is very fictional). This would be world in motion, but other people might call it a metaplot event.

I started this topic to find out what would make a world in motion in the new wod. I now know what is missing. It's not the metaplot. It's goals and motivations. The old wod had clear goals. The Technocracy wants to wipe out magic for example. The Traditions don't want that. You could see what will be going on even without players getting involved. New wod doesn't have that. You gotta make it up yourself. An NPC goal could be becoming a Primogen for example. A covenant goal could be getting control of the Harbour district, which is now Invictus territory.

This never came up with me, because the books don't set that example. They only give relationships. What NPC's think of each other, what covenants think of other covenants, what clans think of other clans etc. This could be useful, but it doesn't create a dynamic environment. I think this is because the WW writers don't get the principles behind a sandbox game. They think making a relationship web or political web is enough for a sandbox game. I think they are wrong.

Very pleased with your outcome of your experiment/thread.

Quote from: LordVreeg;745202Very pleased with your outcome of your experiment/thread.

Yes now it will have the standard nwod territories (mostly districts and neighbourhoods; residential, comercial, industrial etc.) and it will have the standard factions and NPC's. But they will have motivations and goals.

I was thinking about a mortals/hunter setting. It will have several spirits. Most spirits will be serving a bigger spirit lord. Include some hunter organisations, some factions dedicated towards researching the unknown and some splats serving the unknown. So you got hunters, occult researchers, servants and cults all in one city. Add on top of that some NPC's who have nothing to do about that. Police, criminal organisations, neighbourhood watches.

For my vampire setting this is even easier, because it already has several splats. I never really liked them, because they always take the same roles. Invictus does the meritocracy vs carthians who are about change, LS is the conservative church vs CotC who are pagan witches. But giving them concrete goals steers a little bit away from that. I could also add in some extra covenants or bloodlines or even other vampire types and give all of them group goals.

Quote from: LordVreeg;745173No.
Or, at least, if you'd read any of the posts previous, you'd se many who consider Metaplot to be the large-scale stuff the GM sets into motion (often at different levels) to enhance the World in Motion ideal, for the PCs to interact or not interact with at different levels.

I played Shadowrun, Deadlands, World of Darkness, all the major sinners of the Metaplot Decade, and the metaplot never ran over anything the characters did.  Sometimes they crossed with it, sometimes they didn't, sometimes they didn't even know about it, or care if they did.  All an extremely rich metaplot does is give you a great tapestry to hang behind you as you play, and can fill in a lot of work for a GM, or if you're a GM like me, who likes to have stuff I can riff off of, a whole library of idea kickstarters.

Whether to railroad you or let you explore a World in Motion is always the decision of the GM, no matter how retarded the game designers and the players.  WoD players, of course went a little overboard since not really having many adventures, just city sandboxes full of characters and rulebooks and novels full of metaplot, the implication was, tour guiding through the metaplot was how it was done.

To tell you the truth though, the metaplot railroading of WoD is one of those internet myths that is greatly exaggerated.  The LARPers were all into that, but I always played in awesome city sandboxes, and a whole lot of Trenchcoat & Katana.

Quote from: RPGPundit;745154There's two kinds of metaplot out there: there's the stuff driven from the published material itself, where you're told something HAS to happen or something CAN'T happen because of something to do with the setting material, or novel or tv-show or comic tie-ins, or because of the Author's "Vision" of how it ought to be, or because of future products, or whatever bullshit.

The second is where the GM himself has a grand 'authorial' scheme as a frustrated would-be novelist of how he would like things to go and therefore railroads his way into insisting it turn out how he likes.

Both suck ass.

I kind of think that there is a third choice, which is "world in motion".  Imagine playing in the Game of Thrones world -- you could change the course of the stories through character intervention.  A key character could die in a PC encounter or PC diplomats could shift the balance of sides.  The same thing could happen in a "War of Roses" pseudo-historical game.  One of the PCs might play their cards right and supplant Henry Tudor as the ultimate victor.  

But if players don't get involved in the big events it creates background, complications and flavor.  The Battle of St Albans (using war of the roses)could impede travel, involve PCs, be prevented by shrewd PC actions, or give implications to PCs/PC Patrons.  

It only begins to suck when the players are powerless to interact with the big events or forced to listen to exposition.  It should be a case of players who are interested can learn things about what is happening.  Players who are uninterested will simply hear the different name of a monarch from time to time.  They may not care if the Monarch is Richard or Henry or Edward, but rather what is going on in the court of the dark fae.  This can make the sandbox more dynamic and create opportunities for fun gameplay.  

What I did not like about World of Darkness events was that huge changes happened to the world and there really was not a lot of options for this to make things awesome.  

It is also 100% essential that the DM not have a specific outcome in mind -- there was a direction that events would take if nothing was done but if players do something clever they are supposed to be awesome.  A clever plan could eliminate Tywin Lannister at the right moment, and the whole setting could shift as a logical consequence.  

It is a hard balance and I have seen it done well.  But I tend to do static settings because I am not good enough to keep it in the background nor to avoid liking my exposition too much.  If players wanted to read a novel and not play a game, there are far better novelists than I.

The problem with metaplots is not that they are inherently bad or detrimental to the player agency, the problem is that the development of a good metaplot is apparently quite difficult. There are a few quite good metaplot developments for some settings (for instance, the "Golden Age of Shadowrun" from Universal Brotherhood onwards up to the wrap-up of the Arkology Arc) were quite good and enriched the game by adding developments to the setting that affected the characters and offered new opportunities for the players); however, there are many, many examples of really bad metaplots that just did not work that well. Ideally, a metaplot is a great instrument to make sure that the setting remains engaging over time so that long time players still gain new stuff to discover and the setting prevents to become too static and predictable and it is good aid to the gamemaster to keep the world in motion without having to invest quite a lot of work to determine larger world events.
I am inherently lazy, so as a GM I benefit if I can outsource those global developments to a team of external authors, which allows me to concentrate on the local events around my players' characters. Without a metaplot, I either have less time to concentrate on the actual plot, or I only have access to rather lackluster global events. I don't like these two options too much.
If there is one genuine problem with the issue than it is the need to create a series of increasingly spectacular events; each new great metaplot arc needs to just as bombastic as its predecessors, if not more so, and from a world building perspective, that will become rather silly and inconsistent after a time, especially in longer running settings. Worst example I can think of is probably Legend of the Five Rings.

Quote from: CRKrueger;745303Whether to railroad you or let you explore a World in Motion is always the decision of the GM, no matter how retarded the game designers and the players.  WoD players, of course went a little overboard since not really having many adventures, just city sandboxes full of characters and rulebooks and novels full of metaplot, the implication was, tour guiding through the metaplot was how it was done.

To tell you the truth though, the metaplot railroading of WoD is one of those internet myths that is greatly exaggerated.  The LARPers were all into that, but I always played in awesome city sandboxes, and a whole lot of Trenchcoat & Katana.

I think right. Much (not all) of the criticism against metaplots struck me as passive, non-gaming consumers of the game's fiction whining against some metaplot point or another.

Now the "signature characters" well, those really got on my nerves.

And my actual play experience mirrors your own.

Quote from: CRKrueger;745303I played Shadowrun, Deadlands, World of Darkness, all the major sinners of the Metaplot Decade, and the metaplot never ran over anything the characters did.  Sometimes they crossed with it, sometimes they didn't, sometimes they didn't even know about it, or care if they did.  All an extremely rich metaplot does is give you a great tapestry to hang behind you as you play, and can fill in a lot of work for a GM, or if you're a GM like me, who likes to have stuff I can riff off of, a whole library of idea kickstarters.

Whether to railroad you or let you explore a World in Motion is always the decision of the GM, no matter how retarded the game designers and the players.  WoD players, of course went a little overboard since not really having many adventures, just city sandboxes full of characters and rulebooks and novels full of metaplot, the implication was, tour guiding through the metaplot was how it was done.

To tell you the truth though, the metaplot railroading of WoD is one of those internet myths that is greatly exaggerated.  The LARPers were all into that, but I always played in awesome city sandboxes, and a whole lot of Trenchcoat & Katana.

As usual, you get it.

As a GM, I create a few over arching campaign plots/stories, that are the big-picture Tapestry that are behind everthing.  (great term, btw).  
Now, I've been doing this a while.  So, as a setting designer, there are local plots that are 'side effects/symptoms' of the major ones (as well as some not related) that create the Local World in Motion with the more static 'set piece' that is the players local area.
And I play the rest of the world without bias, frankly hoping like hell they eventually intersect and interact with the local bits that run into the larger metaplot.  But if they don't, I don't force it, I just continue playing the rest of the world and advancing all natural effects of the Metaplot..because they move, with and without player agency.  My games go on for years and years, and I love it when the PCs get those lightbulb moments.

Because not only CAN players affect metaplot, but in a long term sandbox, that is actually the desired outcome...we want them to get into it and muck it up.  My PCs in my igbar game, after about 11 years of play, are still dealing with maybe 1 level up from the local symptoms of the metaplot, with a few links still in between.

Frodo was a PC.  We want him mucking about with the metaplot.  Good thing he didn't hang around to loot barrows for 6 months of game time.

Quote from: CRKrueger;745303To tell you the truth though, the metaplot railroading of WoD is one of those internet myths that is greatly exaggerated.  The LARPers were all into that, but I always played in awesome city sandboxes, and a whole lot of Trenchcoat & Katana.

The big railroady part only came up in the end of times books. That's where the railroading started. I think the problem with owod was that it was way too detailed. And nwod was way too sparse with details. Instead of giving a very broadly detailed setting with a zillion different area's and a zillion different organisations, but not fleshing them out beyond one or two pages per area or splat. That would have been the solution. Breadth instead of depth.

Trechcoat and katana or gone btw. It's more modern horror now. It's "matured" and serious. Actually I like the tone better without all the geekiness.

Quote from: The Butcher;745360I think right. Much (not all) of the criticism against metaplots struck me as passive, non-gaming consumers of the game's fiction whining against some metaplot point or another.

Now the "signature characters" well, those really got on my nerves.

And my actual play experience mirrors your own.

Yep signature characters overruling the players are the worst. Makes them a bunch of extra's in a movie.

Edit:
I see now why I like Hellfrost. It has many regions and many organisations. Those organisations all have clearly defined goals. Very easy to sandbox straight from the box.

Quote from: LordVreeg;745173No.
Or, at least, if you'd read any of the posts previous, you'd se many who consider Metaplot to be the large-scale stuff the GM sets into motion (often at different levels) to enhance the World in Motion ideal, for the PCs to interact or not interact with at different levels.

"World in motion" should not be "metaplot", unless the DM is doing it wrong.

Quote from: RPGPundit;745917"World in motion" should not be "metaplot", unless the DM is doing it wrong.

Right.
My two live games are 19 years and 11 years old.  With the original Metaplots ongoing and affecting the play even today.  If this is doing it wrong, maybe I don't want to do it right.

(and yes, my online games are in the same setting, so the metaplots are active there as well.)

Read through it again.  Metaplot is not considered World in Motion, it's the over arching plotline that enhances World in Motion.  All plotlines moving though time logically, affected by player agency or not, create the feeling of motion.  Metaplot is just the biggest one.

Quote from: LordVreeg;745950Right.
My two live games are 19 years and 11 years old.  With the original Metaplots ongoing and affecting the play even today.  If this is doing it wrong, maybe I don't want to do it right.

(and yes, my online games are in the same setting, so the metaplots are active there as well.)

Read through it again.  Metaplot is not considered World in Motion, it's the over arching plotline that enhances World in Motion.  All plotlines moving though time logically, affected by player agency or not, create the feeling of motion.  Metaplot is just the biggest one.

Yep, agreed. I think Pundit has a bit of a blind spot for it. The over arching plotline can make it more interesting, wether it's canonical or from the GM's mind. If the plot makes the actions of the players redundant, then it becomes a nuisance.

The "overarching plotline" should be entirely the product of "world in motion'. There shouldn't be any infusion of GM-interference on NPC choices there, or events outside of cosmic chronology.

So it should be a case where there is no difference. The "overarching plotline" is produced by you having NPCs with initial priorities when they first appear, then proceeding to follow those priorities.

What else needs to be added there?

Quote from: RPGPundit;746415The "overarching plotline" should be entirely the product of "world in motion'. There shouldn't be any infusion of GM-interference on NPC choices there, or events outside of cosmic chronology.

So it should be a case where there is no difference. The "overarching plotline" is produced by you having NPCs with initial priorities when they first appear, then proceeding to follow those priorities.

What else needs to be added there?

I get what you mean. There shouldn't be any story written in advance wether it's done by the GM or the writers.

In a sandbox the story or plot is produced by player actions and NPC's reacting to that. Or player actions and the NPC's doing something else at the same time.

I will be playing a game like that in the near future with the WoD. It is surprisingly functional as a sandbox. Just look at those city books. It's all districs, neighbourhoods and locations on one hand and a list of NPC's and factions on the other hand.

Only thing missing is NPC/faction motivations and goals. They do always write about NPC relationships. Swap that out and replace with goals and it's a sandbox.

Quote from: Old Geezer;743840"Metaplot" to me means "Luke Skywalker will fight Darth Vader, who will then kill the Emperor.  NOTHING the players do will, or can, alter that."

Of course, it's a big galaxy, and in the Tapani Sector, Dahail Sunfire, first of the New Republic Jedi, was much more famous than that Skywalker kid.

That is metaplot, and metaplot has no place in my games.  When I ran Deadlands or Shadowrun in the 90's I deliberately trampled on the metaplot.  Stone was killed immediately, as was that dragon asshole Dunkelzaurous.

Quote from: RabidWookie;747203That is metaplot, and metaplot has no place in my games.  When I ran Deadlands or Shadowrun in the 90's I deliberately trampled on the metaplot.  Stone was killed immediately, as was that dragon asshole Dunkelzaurous.

It's funny - one of my players created a character who has a personal vendetta against Stone. He is rich, so he is keeping in his private train a genius mad scientist, who is building for him The Large Hadron Collider, aiming to create a little black hole to send Stone somewhere in the cosmos ;)

Quote from: RPGPundit;746415The "overarching plotline" should be entirely the product of "world in motion'. There shouldn't be any infusion of GM-interference on NPC choices there, or events outside of cosmic chronology.

The thing is, metaplot doesn't assume GM interference on NPC choice any more then the presence of NPC motivations and events that will occur if the PCs do nothing is a railroad.

Quote from: RPGPundit;746415So it should be a case where there is no difference. The "overarching plotline" is produced by you having NPCs with initial priorities when they first appear, then proceeding to follow those priorities.

What else needs to be added there?

Nothing needs to be added, and metaplot doesn't necessarily add anything.

Take Shadowrun and one of the "signature characters" Dunkelzahn.  I've played Shadowrun for decades and aside from one character who took a Dragon Trivia skill, my characters have had no connection to him at all.  Now, as Dunkelzahn affects the world, the players have that as a backdrop, the tapestry behind the campaign, that can be as important or unimportant as the latest Seattle Mariners scores.  If Dunkelzahn, through supreme self-sacrifice gets other immortals like Ehran the Scribe to rethink their past plans and look to new ideas, what effect is that going to have on the game?  Probably nothing, especially if noone knows about it.  The local corporate and organized crime movers and shakers probably matter more to your character's lives and interests.  What might matter though is that if other elves from Tir Tairngire don't like that Ehran joined the Draco Foundation, then there might be some Telestrian Industries johnsons who have some jobs against the Draco Foundation.  If a character does become exposed to metaplot secrets, it's really more like insider trading knowledge.  If you get some inkling a shadow war is coming, you can position yourself to take advantage of that knowledge as an Operative who might get hired by either or both parties.

The tapestry will always be there.   There will always be people beyond your character's ken doing things beyond their immediate knowledge, concern, or control (even if your character is an absolute dictator).  Whether it's one of 100% your making or not does not change it's purpose, and if you decide to use it like a locked-in roadmap - that decision is yours and yours alone.

Now Deadlands did a lot more then give you just metaplot, they had very specific "epic campaign adventures" that were supposed to have certain outcomes that affected the three historical lines Deadlands, Hell on Earth, and Lost Colony.  They were telling a story through game supplements.

The Shadowrun version of that is telling a story through novels, and then having originally, normal style modules that didn't have anything to do with the story, and then later, campaign style adventure supplements that were about "this event happens, here's X number of different ways you can try and use this material in your campaign and have your characters affect the outcome".

If you're running sandbox style, then the world will move as it would if the players weren't there, but will be affected by their actions to the degree of their in-character power.

You, as the GM, can decide on story elements that you might want to emphasize, but those story elements should remain consist with the setting. We know, in Glorantha, for example, that Harrek the Berserk has a big hate on for the Red Emperor and will most likely kill him barring PC intervention. If you want to have Harrek interact with the PCs and it makes sense for the PCs to do so in the setting's context (for example, the PCs want to become Wolf Pirates and must prove themselves to Harrek), then you can explore themes and such from there. But the game play must be emergent and not scripted.

You can have plans, but having plans and ideas as to what you *want* to see is not the same thing as pre-determined plot that happens in some other styles of RPGs, if you game sandbox/sim style.

Do you consider the 50 fanthoms plot of the curse of the three seahags metaplot? Or the crashing of the serpent in Days after Ragnarok? Or is that backstory? I think it is. SW is perfect in that way. Most books start with a few pages with plot that makes it interesting, without being über detailed.

You know what, new wod of darkness misses some sort of overarching plotline. I don't know if that's the same as metaplot. Just look at the X-files. It had monster of the week episodes. And there were myth-arc episodes which had an overarching plot, which expanded on the canon of the setting. Those myth-arc episodes made it interesting. Period. Same as in Supernatural.

New wod is like the x-files without the myth-arc episodes. I don't really know if playing it like a sandbox solves that problem. I need an overarching plotline. Which comes from sandboxing probably. Not from being written in a book. It would help if there was a short piece of backstory in the books which could lead to an overarching plotline, but there isn't.

Edit:
Metaplot leads to an expansion on the setting's canon, right?

Quote from: CRKrueger;747346The thing is, metaplot doesn't assume GM interference on NPC choice any more then the presence of NPC motivations and events that will occur if the PCs do nothing is a railroad.

No.  If you have a 'timeline', where certain things will likely happen, that doesn't necessarily cause interference.  If you have NPC plans where they will "likely" do A, B, and C if all goes according to their intentions, that won't necessarily cause interference.

But if you have Metaplot, where certain things MUST happen, then no matter what the PCs do they cannot avoid that "must" from happening, and that is very much an interference.  Its railroading on a larger scale.

Quote from: RPGPundit;748477But if you have Metaplot, where certain things MUST happen, then no matter what the PCs do they cannot avoid that "must" from happening, and that is very much an interference.  Its railroading on a larger scale.

I don't see it that way.

Let's, for instance, borrow an example from current politics.  The "metaplot" is, for the sake of argument, Russia's meddling in Ukrainian affairs.  What exactly could your average party of PCs do to affect that situation?  Whack Putin?  Presuming that they could get through his security and do so, whose to say there's no lieutenant eager to take his place and continue his policies?  Stop the takeover of the Crimea?  That involved an invasion and a wide swathe of support of the populace.  Start a shooting war?  There's been violence over there for the better part of a year, nothing new to see here.

However much the PCs do the missions PCs usually do, the forces of nationalism, jingoism, irredentism, sectarianism, factionalism, violence and fear, on an international level, are far beyond their ability to affect in any meaningful way.

I don't consider that "railroading."  I consider that being that the PCs are never going to be the ultimate movers and shakers in the world, and that the world will turn without them.  They might be able to start an avalanche, but they're not going to be able to drop a mountain.

Quote from: RPGPundit;748477No.  If you have a 'timeline', where certain things will likely happen, that doesn't necessarily cause interference.  If you have NPC plans where they will "likely" do A, B, and C if all goes according to their intentions, that won't necessarily cause interference.

But if you have Metaplot, where certain things MUST happen, then no matter what the PCs do they cannot avoid that "must" from happening, and that is very much an interference.  Its railroading on a larger scale.

I will say if the metaplot is done in the form of changes and updates to a setting in supplements or new editions, that can be a lot harder to ignore than a suggested timeline of events. When they released a new boxed set for Ravenloft after the grand conjunction for example, while the pcs could have theoretically prevented it from occuring, it grew harder and harder to run a game using current material if your party was on an alternate timeline of events.

It looos like we are all using slightly different definitions of metaplot perhaps.

Quote from: RPGPundit;748477No.  If you have a 'timeline', where certain things will likely happen, that doesn't necessarily cause interference.  If you have NPC plans where they will "likely" do A, B, and C if all goes according to their intentions, that won't necessarily cause interference.

But if you have Metaplot, where certain things MUST happen, then no matter what the PCs do they cannot avoid that "must" from happening, and that is very much an interference.  Its railroading on a larger scale.

Right.
That's why Metaplot should never be unchangeable.  One never knows what PCs can do.   I think that is one of the issues.  Many of are using the definition of, "Larger, over-arching, Setting-Level Plotline".  
And some people are adding the term, "unchangeable by player agency".  Which is wrong for most games, I agree.  But that's not part of the definition as used by many on the thread

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;748498It looos like we are all using slightly different definitions of metaplot perhaps.

Quote from: LordVreeg;748547Right.
That's why Metaplot should never be unchangeable.  One never knows what PCs can do.   I think that is one of the issues.  Many of are using the definition of, "Larger, over-arching, Setting-Level Plotline".  
And some people are adding the term, "unchangeable by player agency".  Which is wrong for most games, I agree.  But that's not part of the definition as used by many on the thread

Exactly.

However, I think Pundit has something in the difference between "will happen without Player interference" and "Must happen", especially with regards to a published setting.  If a major event is planned, then either it will happen or will not.  The "Official Timeline" can only pick one, so if the writers decided it did happen, and in your campaign it actually did not, then, as Brendan said, it leads to a case where now you are playing in a radically different alternate universe.

Ravenswing is right in that, if the change is big enough, there is probably no way for the PCs to stop it anyway, but most of the time I think it's GMs who are against metaplot, because it's a macro alteration of their world, and now they have a decision to make.

In my campaign, if I don't like something, I'll simply change it, but if the writers keep publishing stuff that not only includes the changes, but focuses on it, then I'm looking elsewhere for inspiration, because I stop buying their product.

Quote from: CRKrueger;748565Exactly.

However, I think Pundit has something in the difference between "will happen without Player interference" and "Must happen", especially with regards to a published setting.  If a major event is planned, then either it will happen or will not.  The "Official Timeline" can only pick one, so if the writers decided it did happen, and in your campaign it actually did not, then, as Brendan said, it leads to a case where now you are playing in a radically different alternate universe.

Ravenswing is right in that, if the change is big enough, there is probably no way for the PCs to stop it anyway, but most of the time I think it's GMs who are against metaplot, because it's a macro alteration of their world, and now they have a decision to make.

In my campaign, if I don't like something, I'll simply change it, but if the writers keep publishing stuff that not only includes the changes, but focuses on it, then I'm looking elsewhere for inspiration, because I stop buying their product.

As a slight digression, I admit that I look at published setting material as an inferior, sub group of gaming.  I am, as I have said before, mystified by the allure.
When I create Metaplot, it is with the express Idea that it is central to the adventuring plot, and if I am damn lucky, the PCs will eventually decide to start mucking with it.

I agree. Metaplot is something that must be followed or ignored. There aren't any other options. Or there is something like the Gehenna book with multiple possible Metaplots.

So now I see the Plot Point campaigns are indeed sandboxes. It's just like Skyrim. A lot of things to do and a main quest hidden inside it, but it is not necessary to follow the main quest.

Problem with the new wod is that it is really low key. So without any bigger story arc, it quickly becomes a monster of the week (hunter), spirit of the week (werewolf) or mystery of the week (mage) kind of game. This becomes old hat pretty quickly.

I don't like Metaplot, but the battle against the Wyrm in Werewolf could lead to campaigns to be played for months. New Werewolf needs some work to play campaigns. It usually turns out like just another day in the life of the spirit border patrol.

Gehenna and the Camarilla Sabbat war could lead to a campaign. Now vampire is another day in the life of a bloodsucker, who is plotting and scheming while holding on to his humanity.

Quote from: RabidWookie;747203That is metaplot, and metaplot has no place in my games. When I ran Deadlands or Shadowrun in the 90's I deliberately trampled on the metaplot.  Stone was killed immediately, as was that dragon asshole Dunkelzaurous.

Ironically, Dunkelzahn was killed in the metaplot too.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;748598I don't like Metaplot, but the battle against the Wyrm in Werewolf could lead to campaigns to be played for months.

I always viewed the Wyrm as a fairly ephemeral thing, kind of like "evil" or "the works of Satan"...

Quote from: Dodger;748600Ironically, Dunkelzahn was killed in the metaplot too.

I always viewed the Wyrm as a fairly ephemeral thing, kind of like "evil" or "the works of Satan"...

Well, you could use it as a black hat, a master schemer who is behind everything.

Quote from: LordVreeg;748574As a slight digression, I admit that I look at published setting material as an inferior, sub group of gaming.  I am, as I have said before, mystified by the allure. When I create Metaplot, it is with the express Idea that it is central to the adventuring plot, and if I am damn lucky, the PCs will eventually decide to start mucking with it.

Agreed.  The only times I've ever GMed with a published setting were doing playtests for books I was contracted to write for said setting.

But that being said, metaplots should evolve.  Using the Ukrainian example I gave uptopic, the situation isn't going to be static forever: the Russians might invade, they might back down, the nation might get tougher, the nation might disintegrate, there might or might not be meaningful Western intervention ... whatever.  Major movers and players might die, age out, retire, move on ... whatever.

I just wouldn't want to be a player walking in after five years' absence and see that NOthing's changed.

Quote from: Ravenswing;748602Agreed.  The only times I've ever GMed with a published setting were doing playtests for books I was contracted to write for said setting.

But that being said, metaplots should evolve.  Using the Ukrainian example I gave uptopic, the situation isn't going to be static forever: the Russians might invade, they might back down, the nation might get tougher, the nation might disintegrate, there might or might not be meaningful Western intervention ... whatever.  Major movers and players might die, age out, retire, move on ... whatever.

I just wouldn't want to be a player walking in after five years' absence and see that NOthing's changed.

There are two things that can go wrong while GM'ing an RPG. I can sum it up like this:

• There is a plot that dictates the outcome instead of the players.
• There is an open world and no plot, but nothing ever changes

Situation 1 is much like the old wod unless the GM deliberately changes or ignores the plot. Situation 2 is much like the new wod. There is no plot, but the setting is always a little status quo, unless the GM makes up a plot of his own.

I like the Savage World approach the best. It's a sandbox, but there is also a metaplot available in which the player characters are playing the mayor roles.

I found it difficult to let Hunter the Vigil be more than a case-by-case monster of the week type of game. It's all little conflicts and it could use a big conflict that could shake things up a little.

Quote from: RPGPundit;748477No.  If you have a 'timeline', where certain things will likely happen, that doesn't necessarily cause interference.  If you have NPC plans where they will "likely" do A, B, and C if all goes according to their intentions, that won't necessarily cause interference.

But if you have Metaplot, where certain things MUST happen, then no matter what the PCs do they cannot avoid that "must" from happening, and that is very much an interference.  Its railroading on a larger scale.

The only way that it's tolerable for me is if the Metaplot is not central to what the PCs are attempting to accomplish, and only indirectly impacts them.

If your Star Wars game is about bounty hunters on the Fringe, then the Galactic Civil War has an impact on the game, but it's not *central*.  The fact that Luke will eventually kill the Emperor is interesting, and it will certainly impact the PCs, but it's not directly aligned with the PC goals.

As soon as the goal of the PCs is "overthrow the Emperor" or "defeat the Rebellion" the Metaplot has moved into the area of infinite suckitude.

Quote from: robiswrong;748904The only way that it's tolerable for me is if the Metaplot is not central to what the PCs are attempting to accomplish, and only indirectly impacts them.

If your Star Wars game is about bounty hunters on the Fringe, then the Galactic Civil War has an impact on the game, but it's not *central*.  The fact that Luke will eventually kill the Emperor is interesting, and it will certainly impact the PCs, but it's not directly aligned with the PC goals.

As soon as the goal of the PCs is "overthrow the Emperor" or "defeat the Rebellion" the Metaplot has moved into the area of infinite suckitude.

I respectfully have the opposite opinion.
This is the ultimate use of metaplot, when the PCs want to go fucking with it.  I consider it the ultimate use of my setting metplots when the PCs go after them.

Quote from: LordVreeg;748926I respectfully have the opposite opinion.
This is the ultimate use of metaplot, when the PCs want to go fucking with it.  I consider it the ultimate use of my setting metplots when the PCs go after them.

I will create an awesome campaign, but it can lead to falling down a black hole after the campaign is finished.

If your players are more sandboxing as smugglers for example, it will lead to more random contraband of the week type of play. This can become old hat.

Quote from: robiswrong;748904The only way that it's tolerable for me is if the Metaplot is not central to what the PCs are attempting to accomplish, and only indirectly impacts them.

If your Star Wars game is about bounty hunters on the Fringe, then the Galactic Civil War has an impact on the game, but it's not *central*.  The fact that Luke will eventually kill the Emperor is interesting, and it will certainly impact the PCs, but it's not directly aligned with the PC goals.

As soon as the goal of the PCs is "overthrow the Emperor" or "defeat the Rebellion" the Metaplot has moved into the area of infinite suckitude.

Yep - if my PC is Victoria Nuland and her campaign goal is "bring Ukraine under Western/US control", then a "Putin wins" metaplot is going to suck immensely. If my PC is a low level street grunt in Right Sector, well I'd prefer it if my actions had the possibility to influence national events, but maybe I can live with metaplot it it's well done and I can at least make a difference at a local level. If my PC is an ethnic Ukrainean police detective in New York, then I wouldn't even count it as metaplot, it's more background colour.

Quote from: LordVreeg;748926I respectfully have the opposite opinion.
This is the ultimate use of metaplot, when the PCs want to go fucking with it.  I consider it the ultimate use of my setting metplots when the PCs go after them.

I think you misunderstand me.

If the metaplot insists that the universe plays out the way it does in the movies, then the players attempting to influence things won't be allowed.  This is infinitely sucky.

If the players try to influence what happens and *can* (violating canon/the Metaplot), then it's not really a metaplot thing, it's just setting.  And is awesome.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;749137I will create an awesome campaign, but it can lead to falling down a black hole after the campaign is finished.

If your players are more sandboxing as smugglers for example, it will lead to more random contraband of the week type of play. This can become old hat.

"xyz" of the week can get boring no matter what.  It's also not necessary, regardless of whether one is dealing with a metaplot or not.

(I actually think of the week is a good way to start campaigns, but that's a tangent)

Quote from: robiswrong;749153I think you misunderstand me.

If the metaplot insists that the universe plays out the way it does in the movies, then the players attempting to influence things won't be allowed.  This is infinitely sucky.

If the players try to influence what happens and *can* (violating canon/the Metaplot), then it's not really a metaplot thing, it's just setting.  And is awesome.



"xyz" of the week can get boring no matter what.  It's also not necessary, regardless of whether one is dealing with a metaplot or not.

(I actually think of the week is a good way to start campaigns, but that's a tangent)

we were on the same page; i did not read your use of 'suckitude' correctly.

Quote from: LordVreeg;749179we were on the same page; i did not read your use of 'suckitude' correctly.

It's understandable.  Suckitude is a highly technical, very nuanced term.

Quote from: robiswrong;749153"xyz" of the week can get boring no matter what.  It's also not necessary, regardless of whether one is dealing with a metaplot or not.

(I actually think of the week is a good way to start campaigns, but that's a tangent)

I made another topic about this called Plot, campaigns, backstabbing and evil masterminds. This will discuss campaigns and getting away from xyz of the week. Strangely because new wod doesn't have any metaplot it does become xyz of the week to me.

Quote from: Ravenswing;748489I don't see it that way.

Let's, for instance, borrow an example from current politics.  The "metaplot" is, for the sake of argument, Russia's meddling in Ukrainian affairs.  What exactly could your average party of PCs do to affect that situation?  Whack Putin?  Presuming that they could get through his security and do so, whose to say there's no lieutenant eager to take his place and continue his policies?  Stop the takeover of the Crimea?  That involved an invasion and a wide swathe of support of the populace.  Start a shooting war?  There's been violence over there for the better part of a year, nothing new to see here.

However much the PCs do the missions PCs usually do, the forces of nationalism, jingoism, irredentism, sectarianism, factionalism, violence and fear, on an international level, are far beyond their ability to affect in any meaningful way.

I don't consider that "railroading."  I consider that being that the PCs are never going to be the ultimate movers and shakers in the world, and that the world will turn without them.  They might be able to start an avalanche, but they're not going to be able to drop a mountain.

I think we're talking about different things, somewhat.  There's a difference between "this is a huge event that is happening in the world, and the PCs at their current level of power and influence almost certainly couldn't do anything to really change it" (that's fine, its just chronology), and "Doctor Demento HAS to survive his battle with the PCs because later on he's crucial to the events that involve the invasion of Mordavia" (that's metaplot).

Trust me, I know a thing or two about this: I've run several historic campaigns, including one in the Roman empire, three kingdoms China, etc.  And in all of these there were moments when the PCs changed something I didn't expect them to change; but more often there were moments when they tried to change the short or long-term course of history and failed.  On a couple of occasions, this led to players accusing me of imposing a metaplot; but that wasn't the case.  Its not that they couldn't possibly change anything, just that since large-scale historical events occurred through a confluence and weight of several significant historical factors, some things would be very very difficult to change.  Other things could have been changed, but at a personal cost the PCs just weren't willing to pay (for example, Nero's reign could certainly have been cut short if a senatorial PC had gotten his trust, made his way into his inner circle, and then assassinated him; but this would almost certainly have cost that PC his own life, and so he didn't do it, and Nero lived for the same reason that he lived as long as he did in our real history).

The difference is that while its almost impossible for the PCs to be capable of doing anything to stop Putin's assault on the Slavic nations, or the Storm of Dragons that will lay waste to the strongholds of the dwarven kings, or whatever, it isn't metaplot if, by some miracle, they did figure out something to change or stop what's happening, and were ALLOWED to do so.
But when the GM or the Game Designer says "nothing at all, nothing the PCs do, or come up with, no matter how unexpected or amazing or clever, should allow them to prevent Event X from happening because it MUST happen for my grand novelistic designs", then that's the imposition of a Metaplot, rather than a chronology.

RPGPundit

Right.  That was well pointed out.  You have been using a different definition of the word than most of us.

Quote from: LordVreeg;749884Right.  That was well pointed out.  You have been using a different definition of the word than most of us.

Pundit's description fits with my understanding of Metaplot; it's the stuff in my '90s sourcebooks that says "This NPC can't be killed, because they're necessary to the events we'll reveal in future books."

BTW I love how Paizo strictly avoid Metaplot in their game world even as they advance the timeline. Some adventures assume previous adventures have happened, but (a) it's always the past or present PCs who are at the centre of stuff and (b) they are very good at providing alternatives, 'what if X happened in your game'. The result is that the passive reader of the APs gets all the satisfaction of seeing an evolving world, as with '90s metaplot worlds (WoD, Heavy Gear, et al), but OTOH PCs are pretty well never reduced to the status of passive observers. James Jacobs has some silly Politically Correct bees in his bonnet that do some damage, but overall he's a very talented line director/editor.

Quote from: S'mon;749151Yep - if my PC is Victoria Nuland and her campaign goal is "bring Ukraine under Western/US control", then a "Putin wins" metaplot is going to suck immensely. If my PC is a low level street grunt in Right Sector, well I'd prefer it if my actions had the possibility to influence national events, but maybe I can live with metaplot it it's well done and I can at least make a difference at a local level. If my PC is an ethnic Ukrainean police detective in New York, then I wouldn't even count it as metaplot, it's more background colour.

Any GM with a "Putin wins" metaplot is just asking for trouble. The metaplot should be "Putin wants to win", which involves a series of strategic elements that the PCs can get involved with or ignore. If the ultimate conclusion of the metaplot is "Putin wins if the PCs don't try and stop him" then fair enough.

"Putin Wins" = Bad
"Putin Wins regardless of what the PCs do" = Bad
"Putin wants to win" = OK
"Putin wins if the PCs don't try and stop him" = OK

Quote from: soltakss;749923Any GM with a "Putin wins" metaplot is just asking for trouble. The metaplot should be "Putin wants to win", which involves a series of strategic elements that the PCs can get involved with or ignore. If the ultimate conclusion of the metaplot is "Putin wins if the PCs don't try and stop him" then fair enough.

"Putin Wins" = Bad
"Putin Wins regardless of what the PCs do" = Bad
"Putin wants to win" = OK
"Putin wins if the PCs don't try and stop him" = OK

My understanding is that "Putin wants to win and will if PCs don't stop him" would be the plot, whereas metaplot is what goes on above & behind the plot and is not affected by variations in plot outcome.

"The metaplot is the overarching storyline that binds together events in a role-playing game. Major story events that change the world, or simply move important non-player characters from one place to another, are part of the metaplot for a game. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaplot
The term unchanging doe not come into it.  Especially in Homebrews, etc...

However, in many instances, the overarching story line became less mutable when canned setting came into the equation, as the later published works depend on the metaplot to remain consistent with the 'canon' version.   So I think Pundit's usage definition comes from the same as yours, it would make sense that 90's sourcebooks would mention that, since they are that...sourcebooks, depending on a captive audience.

I would agree that any GM that includes things that *Must* occur regardless of PC intervention is a jackass.

I don't think metaplot automatically includes the negative aspects that Pundit and S'mon are using, but I think that's the easiest way to look at it and here's why.

Published settings.

In a published setting, A can happen or B not happen.  The published campaign has to move on as if A or B occurred.  If the publisher moves on with A and in your campaign, it was B, now you have an alternate reality setting.  To be fair, most of the "Metaplot 90's" offenders I can think of really didn't put the campaign into the place where PC action could conceivably lead to the "Railroad Effect".

Sure, the Forgotten Realms has always been the big offender in this regard, usually as result of an edition change, and Deadlands had some railroad modules to service the metaplot, but all in all, I think the negative aspect of the term has been overblown.

As Soltakss says, all of these are metaplot:
"Putin Wins"
"Putin Wins regardless of what the PCs do"
"Putin wants to win"
"Putin wins if the PCs don't try and stop him"

I think the difference is, with someone like Lord Vreeg, who doesn't use a published setting, the "chronology" as Pundit puts it, comes from him.  Since he's the Metaplot author, there can be no divergence in campaigns, because there's only one.  If the PCs don't mess with anything, X happens, if they do mess with it, X may change.

In a published setting, this chronology comes from someone else, and is not dependent on what happens at your table.  There may or may not be divergence.  If there is divergence, no matter how skillfully presented in modules, etc... there still can be frustration on the part of the GM who sees the publishers as "fucking with his campaign".

Interesting discussion, here's some links.
Wikipedia Definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaplot)
RPGTheory Definition (http://random.average-bear.com/TheoryTopics/Metaplot)
Rant against Metaplot (http://home.earthlink.net/~esasmor/blacklight/metaplot.htm)

If you look at the rant, specifically the White Wolf metaplot points he makes, there's really very little the PCs could do to affect change there to begin with, much like assassinating Nero.  So it's not that WW was preventing his PCs from stopping a Red Star from appearing in the skies, it's that he didn't want a Red Star to appear in the skies of his campaign.

That's always the tradeoff when using a metaplot other then your own.  If you use a published metaplot, you get all the "world in motion" benefit of using your own without having to create it, so you can focus on how events cause ripples at the micro level where the PCs are.  However, in the end, you are not the author, so the metaplot can go where you don't want it to.

To me if it changes the world it is metaplot. If it explains the world it is backstory. I love backstory, I don't like metaplot. To me backstory is everything happening from year zero till now. Everything after that is metaplot.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;752679To me if it changes the world it is metaplot. If it explains the world it is backstory. I love backstory, I don't like metaplot. To me backstory is everything happening from year zero till now. Everything after that is metaplot.

So do you consider current events story or metaplot? The background stuff? Like Master Janus of the Silver Ladder is rumoured to be an Archmage....he may help you for a price...if you find that out before the game but confirm in game? Or what?

Quote from: Marleycat;752811So do you consider current events story or metaplot? The background stuff? Like Master Janus of the Silver Ladder is rumoured to be an Archmage....he may help you for a price...if you find that out before the game but confirm in game? Or what?

I am not that familiar with Mage the Awakening. So I don't really know. Who is Janus?

Quote from: jan paparazzi;753110I am not that familiar with Mage the Awakening. So I don't really know. Who is Janus?

I was just giving an example basically he is just one of my NPC's. It would be like Stella Reed: Elder Deava of the Invictus.

Quote from: Marleycat;753118I was just giving an example basically he is just one of my NPC's. It would be like Stella Reed: Elder Deava of the Invictus.

Ah, to me that's just an NPC. With a secret agenda. Works very well for sandboxing. It's neither backstory nor metaplot. But I am a simpleton. I like to put things in a box and they are never allowed out of that box. I am a black and white thinker.

Cool, I just wanted to see what your definition of the terms you're using are meaning in context. Thanks.:)